Jimmie,

I had another thought ... there is a menu option called "AF - area mode." Within this section you have three options: single area, dynamic area, and closest subject.

My camera always wants to revert back to "closest subject" which I don't particularly like. If you have a subject in front of you with their hands folded in front of them the camera will choose to focus on the hands because they are closest to the camera. I keep choosing "single area" and it keeps finding it's way back to "closest subject."

If because of certain exposure settings your depth of field is very narrow this will throw the face out of focus. In very narrow dof the tip of the nose may be crisply focused and the eye not. I like to focus on the eye.

Mike, I had this problem initially and I know what you mean. You want it to focus on a specific part of the image, not necessarily the closest thing.

I was able to change the ND70 so that it always stays on the center focal area though. I had to wade through the manual a bit to find out how to get it to do that, but it works fine and doesn't revert back to "closest subject".

Jimmie, thanks for posting those hands with the color adjustments. I can easily do the same adjustments using curves and color balance in Photoshop though. It's pretty fast too. For now I think I'll stick with the JPEG file formats and Photoshop.

Especially if, as Holly said, the RAW files take much longer to write to memory than JPEG. I want to be able to shoot five quick frames of a wiggly child and don't want to wait even two seconds before I could push the shutter again.

Also, I understand what you mean, Jimmy, about the lack of sharp focus in "low" light. I photographed a girl in a chair yesterday right next to a big window, and used a tripod. She was sitting fairly still. It was a cloudy day but I thought I had plenty of light. I used the Auto ISO function so I have no idea what ISO the camera thought would be best. The shots came out a bit fuzzy and grainy, even the arm of chair, which surprised me.

A few weeks ago I photographed two VERY wiggly kids, no tripod, another cloudy day (hey, it's winter in the Northwest!) but we were outdoors, so there was lots more light. The shots came out much sharper.

Thanks for posting the images Jimmie. As Michele said, It seems to me that Photoshop CS could do the same thing with curves. But with the Photoshop Elements that I have, I have to adjust the red, green and blue individually which definitely takes a little work. Is the resolution/detail quality a lot better with the raw files over the jpgs?

Michele, you definitely know more Photoshop than I do. I used to do the individual colors myself as Holly just described, but never got it as good as (or as easy) the Capture program. I guess I never really got that deep into it because I was doing graphite drawings anyway. As long as the contrast was good, I was good to go. The Capture program puts it in plain english, very straight foward.

Holly, again, since I did mainly graphite work, I would'nt be experienced enough to tell you if it'll make a difference. The quality is better, better enough to make a difference as reference? I don't know. Marvin uses the RAW setting, don't know if all the time. I'll PM him to see if he has time to pop in and give better advice.

Hi Y'all,

Can you tell I'm back from Atlanta? Ok Jimmy I'm chiming in. The raw file, called NEF by Nikon, contains far more info than a jpg ever could. First of all it's 16 bits which means it has a geometrically increased amount of information in each pixel. I believe hundreds if not thousands more. When applying a curve in Photoshop certain data gets tossed. However in the raw format all the data is retained. The alterations to the image are attached and not embeded.

Photoshop has a raw converter which I'm currently experimenting with. I'm reading a book by Bruce Frasier on the subject.

Gotta run now, but I'll be updating this thread.

I'm back!

One of the interesting things about the Photoshop camera raw plug-in is that you have the ability to rescue some clipped highlights and shadows that in a jpg appear to be void of detail. Sometimes this can spell the difference between a good and unusable image.

The advantage of having your image edited in Raw is that there are many fine tunings available that don't exist in Photoshop. Also in the Photoshop raw plug-in you also have the ability to batch process and review images without actually having to open them.

There is a reason that the top pros shoot raw. It offers much greater flexibility. I back-up my Raw images on Cd's. It's like archiving one's negatives.

One thing I really like about the Nikon Capture program is that it allows you to upload custom curves to the camera. It's pretty awesome.

Welcome back Marvin!

Is the Photoshop raw plug-in an extra cost module?

I think the low-cost Photoshop Elements v.3 also has raw image manipulation now, but of course not the functionality of CS.

That's good to know that you can get more information out of the highlights and shadows with raw. If you enlarge the same raw and jpg image side-by-side, do you see more detail, range of coloring, values etc in the raw, to the extent that it would make a difference to paint from?

How have you found the curves to be useful? Do you use curves when you have the exact same lighting setup from model to model?

You may not want to answer this, as I can probably come up with even more questions based on your answers...

Holly

No. It comes with the CS version. You can download the update on Adobe's site.

They would look the same until you made the adjustments. Yes it would make a difference.

I use a curve I found on the Internet called the "white wedding dress curve" which really brings out the tonal details in the lights. It was created by a wedding photographer.

Who'da thunk it! ;-)

Thanks Marvin.